Hans H. Mattsson, Area 70 On Mormon Stories

[canard78]

Provide some evidence for your conclusion of fraud.

No. The evidence I quote is from my own experience. Other evidence I have from other peoples experiences is confidential so I won't share it here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Needless to say, I stick by my conclusions 100%.

You have first hand experience of Elder Mattsson? Or of other people?.

Of other people, including myself - yes I do.

I believe you've said you're a Bishop in the past. If a member comes to you expressing doubts is your first reply to ask them about their worthiness?

No, but invariably it is. It may not come to light immediately, but it does eventually.

That's incredible. No evidence at all?

You've also ignored the CFR that asked you for the evidence for your conclusion that he's a fraud.

In the interview he said that he started the process (8 years ago) of studying this information in order to answer the concerns of a friend. I started this process in the hope of answering some of my wife's concerns. I was fully temple recommend worthy when I started. She was too when she stopped attending. Do you read that and presume I'm a liar? If I stop going to church will you presume it's because there is a dark sin I'm hiding and justifying?

That's like me saying:

"In my experience, people who proudly display British flags are usually racist. It may not come out initially, but eventually you'll notice they are racist. Therefore I'm confident in saying Alan is a racist? How do I know this? Because he has a Union Jack as his avatar and despite knowing nothing about the man behind the flag I just presume he must be.

[Krutt]

Church historic department will affirm this practice, but say they just don't know, nor understand...

But what is the difference between marriage and sealing? Book of Mormon states that Polygamy is acceptable only if the purpose is to bring up seed (Jacob 2: 27-30). Marriage - Sealing - Polygamy - Polyandry...I am confused. We have prophets, seers and revelators in our day, can't be that difficult to get an official statement/answer?

[Questing Beast]

They won't do that for one simple reason - there was no polyandry. Joseph was simply sealed to these people, not married to them. When we understand that, the whole issue ceases to be an issue.

You keep saying that, and ignoring JS's acceptance of Nauvoo polygamy, that resulted in some 130 children. So JS was merely "sealed" and his disciples were physically married. Right....

[Krutt]

But what is the difference between marriage and sealing? Book of Mormon states that Polygamy is acceptable only if the purpose is to bring up seed (Jacob 2: 27-30). Marriage - Sealing - Polygamy - Polyandry...I am confused. We have prophets, seers and revelators in our day, can't be that difficult to get an official statement/answer?

I understand so well Brother Mattssons concerns. And those issues really, really hurt when a member comes to realization of them...often very late in life (

[Krutt]

You keep saying that, and ignoring JS's acceptance of Nauvoo polygamy, that resulted in some 130 children. So JS was merely "sealed" and his disciples were physically married. Right....

You say there was no Polyandry. Is this a statement from the church then? Would absolutely love to see a quote from first presidency, or Q12 confirming your claim

[Questing Beast]

You say there was no Polyandry. Is this a statement from the church then? Would absolutely love to see a quote from first presidency, or Q12 confirming your claim

I did? Where? I was writing sarcastically, and it didn't translate, sorry.

Of course there was polyandry, JS's polyandry to some dozen women, some of his earliest plural marriages. As far as I know, nobody else engaged in polyandry, not even BY, who refused to "share" Zina with Henry Jacobs. His was only a civil marriage, so in BY's pov not a real marriage at all, since not by the priesthood; ergo, not polyandry, especially since Zina had left Jacobs before joining BY's family as his plural wife. BY had already been sealed "for time" to Zina, while Jacobs stood witness(!?) in the Nauvoo temple. What was Jacobs thinking? It is very weird. Later Jacobs tried to talk Zina into leaving BY and coming to California, for which Jacobs was evidently disciplined (disfellowshipped or even excommunicated) by BY. So, no polyandry for BY or anybody else but JS....

Edited July 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[canard78]

You say there was no Polyandry. Is this a statement from the church then? Would absolutely love to see a quote from first presidency, or Q12 confirming your claim

No, you misunderstand. QB accepts the clear evidence. Alan is alone on this forum of having reached his own conclusions. Much as I'd love for plural marriage to not be a reality introduced by Joseph and instead an error cooked up in Utah, there's very little evidence to back that position up.

At the risk of a thread derail, there is another over on the one on this actual topic.

[Krutt]

I did? Where? I was writing sarcastically, and it didn't translate, sorry.

Of course there was polyandry, JS's polyandry to some dozen women, some of his earliest plural marriages. As far as I know, nobody else engaged in polyandry, not even BY, who refused to "share" Zina with Henry Jacobs. His was only a civil marriage, so in BY's pov not a real marriage at all, since not by the priesthood; ergo, not polyandry, especially since Zina had left Jacobs before joining BY's family as his plural wife. BY had already been sealed "for time" to Zina, while Jacobs stood witness(!?) in the Nauvoo temple. What was Jacobs thinking? It is very weird. Later Jacobs tried to talk Zina into leaving BY and coming to California, for which Jacobs was evidently disciplined (disfellowshipped or even excommunicated) by BY. So, no polyandry for BY or anybody else but JS....

Apologize...question was really for "Alan". See your point though about "civil marriage", because B.Y. WAS married to several women who still was married outside the temple...

[Krutt]

No, you misunderstand. QB accepts the clear evidence. Alan is alone on this forum of having reached his own conclusions. Much as I'd love for plural marriage to not be a reality introduced by Joseph and instead an error cooked up in Utah, there's very little evidence to back that position up.

At the risk of a thread derail, there is another over on the one on this actual topic.

Ok, and agree; let's stay to the thread...

[Alan]

That's incredible. No evidence at all?

You've also ignored the CFR that asked you for the evidence for your conclusion that he's a fraud.

In the interview he said that he started the process (8 years ago) of studying this information in order to answer the concerns of a friend. I started this process in the hope of answering some of my wife's concerns. I was fully temple recommend worthy when I started. She was too when she stopped attending. Do you read that and presume I'm a liar? If I stop going to church will you presume it's because there is a dark sin I'm hiding and justifying?

That's like me saying:

"In my experience, people who proudly display British flags are usually racist. It may not come out initially, but eventually you'll notice they are racist. Therefore I'm confident in saying Alan is a racist? How do I know this? Because he has a Union Jack as his avatar and despite knowing nothing about the man behind the flag I just presume he must be.

I never said anything about a "dark sin". You need to read what I've said not what you think I'm saying.

When you say he started "studying this information" 8 years ago, from what source was he getting this information? In my experience it all starts with placing more credibility on sources antagonistic towards the church than on those from elsewhere. People kid themselves that they are being objective but there is no such thing as objectivity in these matters. Like I said, I've been there myself and I know what I'm talking about.

P.S. It's a Union Flag, not a Union Jack

Edited July 23, 2013 by Alan

[canard78]

I've done a bit of background reading about this Swedish fella, and have examined his public utterances regarding his doubts.

-SNIP-

No, I don't buy it. I think he's a fraud and this "poor me I'm hurting so much" act is just that, an act; all part of the fraud.

I understand he now lives in Spain. They're welcome to him.

You mention some background reading Alan. CFR.

You have countless unanswered CFRs at the moment.

[Krutt]

I never said anything about a "dark sin". You need to read what I've said not what you think I'm saying.

When you say he started "studying this information" 8 years ago, from what source was he getting this information? In my experience it all starts with placing more credibility on sources antagonistic towards the church than on those from elsewhere. People kid themselves that they are being objective but there is no such thing as objectivity in these matters. Like I said, I've been there myself and I know what I'm talking about.

Alan, I believe Brother Mattssons concerns are genuine. I have serious concerns myself, and some already triggered in history classes at BYU. Most of my concerns are from material in existence/owned by the church...

[teddyaware]

Ted, I was trying to convey my approval of what you wrote by using a phrase some preachers use to emphasize a point, as in "can I get an amen?" I think you are quite eloquent, primarily because you are able to convey what you mean to say in an edifying way. I didn't "get a kick" out of your post, so sorry if my reply seemed critical or snide in any way.

I'm a poor writer, so let me try to clarify what I previously said. I grew up as a Protestant Christian, so I've looked at the LDS Church from the outside in, and even though I consider myself a faithful and very active member, I am uncomfortable at times when people testify "I know the BOM is true. I know JS was a prophet of God and that Thomas S. Monson is God's prophet on earth today," and then they totally skip any testimony about Christ. Who is the Foundation? Through Whom was the universe made? You include in the Gospel quite a bit of what I consider to be extras (solemnly important and vital to our exaltation/sanctification but extras nonetheless). I believe the Gospel is the good news that the Messiah promised in the OT, YHWH Himself, has come in the flesh, suffered and died for humanity's sake, rose again in three days, and is now seated on the right hand of the Most High God. This has always been the bare core of the Gospel to me. The restoration of the Christ's church on earth through the prophet Joseph Smith, and everything else you referred to, is an elaboration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this restoration elucidates the why, how, when, where... many of the details. I believe the LDS church is of God. But my starting point before joining the church was that Jesus is the Son of God as revealed to me by God through revelation. It seems to me that many LDS first ask if the BOM is true, if JS was a prophet, etc. and only then can they believe in Christ - placing the cart before the horse.

I realize that what I'm saying may sound strange to a born-in-the-covenant member, where priesthood, church structure, and even green jello salad can be inextricably tied to the divinity of Jesus. For me, and I would imagine many of my ilk who considered themselves Christians before joining the LDS church, the focus of my worship, the One that I love and call upon, this Jesus - my basic relationship with Him is not dependent upon the existence of the LDS Church, its prophets, or the BOM. I believe in Jesus because God revealed him to me, personally. BUT...because, because, because I believe in Him (as revealed in the protestant bible, the OTHER testament of Jesus Christ), I also believe that the LDS Church IS led by Him, and Thomas Monson is His prophet, and the BOM is scripture, and priesthood authority has been restored to the earth. Does this make sense? Everything starts and ends with Jesus, the Rock of our salvation.

So if one as an LDS member places his faith on anything other than the personal being that is the living, saving, all-encompassing Christ, faith crises will be inevitable in this world of information overload.

Ted, I think you and I are on the exact same page. Only I seem to be reading it upside down.

You are a very good writer, with the talent and ability to make yourself perfectly understood. And I do understand you. You see, I joined the Church two weeks shy of my 21st birthday and, just like you, it took me years to get over my annoyance with the perception that many of my fellow Latter-day Saints -- especially those 'born into the Church types' -- who seemed, at least to me, to not fully appreciate the singular role, centrality and totally transcendent supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ in all things pertaining to the Gospel.

Coming from a protestant background, it really used to stick in my craw when I heard these brethren and sisters talking about Joseph Smith this, and Joseph Smith that, while simultaneously seeming to not give due honor and glory to the infinite and eternal Being who made all good things possible and available.

What I experienced as a new member of the Church might be what one could call a form of religious culture shock, finding myself immersed in an alien world where, at least in some ways, Jesus took a back seat. Yes, it's true His name was there, spoken during the sacrament and at the end of prayers but, at least to my sensibilities, it seemed that the Christ's role as Lord and Savior was poorly understood and underappreciated, with the Biblical doctrine of salvation by the grace of Jesus Christ referred to more than once in formal Church settings as a "false doctrine." Boy did that one make me see red; it took monumental attempts at self control to keep myself from mounting a soap box to "let them have it."

So you see our backgrounds and experiences are similar. Who'd a thunk it?

But guess what, miracle of miracles -- almost as if I had personally had willed it to be so -- the Church's attitude toward and appreciation of Jesus Christ seemed to evolve and change right before my very eyes. Ensign articles, General Conference addresses, and a plethora of books written by General Authorities and learned brethren, all calculated to re-enthrone the all-important central role of the Lord Jesus Christ in our theology, soteriology and religion appeared on the scene, greatly calming my fears that my religion seemed to deemphasize the importance of the incomparable Saviour of mankind.

As to the point I tried to make in my previous post, it's a simple one. The following quote from The Book of Mormon very simply encapsulates and illuminates the principle upon which I attempted to expound...

"1 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize, was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude, and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized, after that ye have seen me and know that I am.

2 And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins. (3 Nephi 12)"

Some may be surprised to know the above two verses comprise two additional beatitudes from the Lord (they actually appear at the beginning of His list) that are not found in His Biblical Sermon on the Mount.

Verse 1 tells us,"Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and to be your servants; and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water." So before the usual list of beatitudes, the Lord places the above beatitude at the head of the list. And what he is saying here is that it isn't enough to accept Him, but the believers are expected to come unto the Savior by placing themselves under the leadership and discipline of the Lord's duly authorized servants. So in order to come unto Christ, his people must also accept the leadership and authority of the Saviour's chosen priesthood leaders. This principle is just as much a principle of the gospel as is any other. Since time immemorial, the Lord's people have always come unto him by also coming unto his prophets.

The second beatitude is like unto the first, but it tells the children of men that a man is even more blessed if he comes unto Christ without having first seen and heard Him in person, but rather come to believe in and follow Him solely on the merits of the testimonies and leadership of his chosen servants. And so we read...

"And again, more blessed are they who shall believe in your words because that ye shall testify that ye have seen me, and that ye know that I am. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words..."

So again we see we cannot fully come unto the Saviour in the way He decrees unless we also accept His authorized servants. So this principle is also an integral component of the gospel of Jesus Chris, to wit that the Christ is revealed to the world through His ordained servants, the prophets, in the same way he was revealed to the world during the Apostolic Era.

Edited July 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

You mention some background reading Alan. CFR.

You have countless unanswered CFRs at the moment.

I don't know what CFR means, but I assume you are referring to evidence of some kind.

Let me state quite clearly that I do not dance to anybodies tune and produce "evidence" for the asking. I don't have to give any evidence whatsoever - this is not a court of law it's a message board. It's a place where we can state and explore opinions.

I have told you that the evidence I have of this apostacy process is confidential because it was given to me on that understanding; it will go to the grave with me. I have no intention of betraying a confidence no matter how many times you write "CFR".

You either accept what I say from my own experiences or you don't. I really don't care either way.

[canard78]

I never said anything about a "dark sin". You need to read what I've said not what you think I'm saying.

You were the one who talked about the excommunicted Elder Lee and child abuse in the same post as Elder Mattsson.

So what are you saying? If someone doubts the church due to history and leaves, you say that some 'real' problem will come out later. If not some hidden sin, then what.

When you say he started "studying this information" 8 years ago, from what source was he getting this information? In my experience it all starts with placing more credibility on sources antagonistic towards the church than on those from elsewhere. People kid themselves that they are being objective but there is no such thing as objectivity in these matters. Like I said, I've been there myself and I know what I'm talking about.

If you don't know the answer to that question then you've clearly not actually done as much research on him as you claim. He read multiple sources. Some positive, some not.

You've been there. I am there. We should both understand where he's coming from. But instead you insist on calling him a fraud without evidence.

P.S. It's a Union Flag, not a Union Jack

Nope:

The terms Union Jack, Union Flag, British Flag are all historically correct for describing the de facto national flag of the United Kingdom. Whether to call it the "Union Jack" or the "Union Flag" is a matter of debate by many. According to the Flag Institute, the vexillological organisation for the United Kingdom, "the national flag of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories is the Union Flag, which may also be called the Union Jack."[4] The Institute also notes:

It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. In 1908, a government minister stated, in response to a Parliamentary question, that "the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag".[5][6]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack

[Krutt]

I've done a bit of background reading about this Swedish fella, and have examined his public utterances regarding his doubts. I have to say I was thoroughly underwhelmed. I can personally answer most of his concerns pretty adequately, so I cannot believe his claim that he couldn't find any answers and Mormon leaders and scholars were evasive. The truth is he just doesn't want to believe, simple as that.

An example: How can he honestly say that he was unaware of Joseph's alleged polygamy..... it's in the D&C for crying out loud!!!

No, I don't buy it. I think he's a fraud and this "poor me I'm hurting so much" act is just that, an act; all part of the fraud.

I understand he now lives in Spain. They're welcome to him.

Brother Mattsson was my area authority from early 2000 to ca 2005. I can testify that he is/was a wonderful and very dedicated LDS & GA. Calling him a "fraud" is speaking ill of Gods anointed...

[Alan]

You were the one who talked about the excommunicted Elder Lee and child abuse in the same post as Elder Mattsson.

So what are you saying? If someone doubts the church due to history and leaves, you say that some 'real' problem will come out later. If not some hidden sin, then what.

If you don't know the answer to that question then you've clearly not actually done as much research on him as you claim. He read multiple sources. Some positive, some not.

You've been there. I am there. We should both understand where he's coming from. But instead you insist on calling him a fraud without evidence.

Nope:

http://www.wikipedia...wiki/Union_Jack

And the "Flag Institute" are the ultimate authority?

I think not my friend.

[Alan]

Brother Mattsson was my area authority from early 2000 to ca 2005. I can testify that he is/was a wonderful and very dedicated LDS & GA. Calling him a "fraud" is speaking ill of Gods anointed...

No it isn't if it's true, and I believe it is.

[canard78]

I don't know what CFR means, but I assume you are referring to evidence of some kind.

"Call for references"

Let me state quite clearly that I do not dance to anybodies tune and produce "evidence" for the asking. I don't have to give any evidence whatsoever - this is not a court of law it's a message board. It's a place where we can state and explore opinions.

I have told you that the evidence I have of this apostacy process is confidential because it was given to me on that understanding; it will go to the grave with me. I have no intention of betraying a confidence no matter how many times you write "CFR".

You either accept what I say from my own experiences or you don't. I really don't care either way.

I'm not interested in your personal conversations. I had similar ones when I was a Branch President. They provide no evidence that Elder Mattsson is a fraud.

You said: "I've done a bit of background reading about this Swedish fella". I'm asking you to share the references for your 'background reading.' Let us all read it so we can come to a conclusion too.

I've read the 36 page transcript of his meeting with Elder Jensen and Bro Turley. I've also listened to part 4 and 5 of his interview with Dehlin. I conclude he is not a fraud. Provide your "background reading" and let us consider the evidence.

And FWIW (for what it's worth), the board rules state that making a statement and refusing to provide references can lead to a ban. So no, you're not breaking the law. But you're ignoring the principles on which the board operates.

[Questing Beast]

...

... In my experience it all starts with placing more credibility on sources antagonistic towards the church than on those from elsewhere. People kid themselves that they are being objective but there is no such thing as objectivity in these matters. Like I said, I've been there myself and I know what I'm talking about.

...

And when the source is a member in good standing, a scholar, who presents their original sources clearly and up front, and provides the questions and makes no denigrating conclusions (e.g. Compton), what then? Nobody is objective about religion. That's impossible. Believer and doubter alike, we all are making decisions based on subjective reasoning. Religious ideas are not a science! History is not a science. It is at most a "discipline", but incapable of being examined scientifically to arrive at a conclusive, exclusive "truth"....

[canard78]

And the "Flag Institute" are the ultimate authority?

I think not my friend.

How about the Queen? Is she high ranking enough for you:

Symbols of the Monarchy:

National Anthem

Royal warrants

Coinage and bank notes

Stamps

Coats of arms

Use of the Royal Arms

Great seal of the realm

Royal Standard

Union Jack

Personal flags

The Honours of Scotland

Honours of the Principality of Wales

The Crown Jewels

Diamond Jubilee emblem

The Union Flag, or Union Jack, is the national flag of the United Kingdom.

It is so called because it combines the crosses of the three countries united under one Sovereign - the kingdoms of England and Wales, of Scotland and of Ireland (although since 1921 only Northern Ireland has been part of the United Kingdom).

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/UnionJack.aspx

Union Jack is just as valid as Union Flag.

[canard78]

And when the source is a member in good standing, a scholar, who presents their original sources clearly and up front, and provides the questions and makes no denigrating conclusions (e.g. Compton), what then? Nobody is objective about religion. That's impossible. Believer and doubter alike, we all are making decisions based on subjective reasoning. Religious ideas are not a science! History is not a science. It is at most a "discipline", but incapable of being examined scientifically to arrive at a conclusive, exclusive "truth"....

Alan hasn't even taken the time to find out what Mattsson's sources are and yet still feels he has done enough "background reading on this fella" to call him a fraud.

The fact that Bushman and Compton are among Mattsson's 8 years of study if probably of little consequence to Alan. He has been a Judge in Israel long enough to be able to spot a fraud from a newspaper article.

[canard78]

No it isn't if it's true, and I believe it is.

A belief based on 0 evidence proffered.

[canard78]

Brother Mattsson was my area authority from early 2000 to ca 2005. I can testify that he is/was a wonderful and very dedicated LDS & GA. Calling him a "fraud" is speaking ill of Gods anointed...

I can imagine this must be really tough going for you and other saints who were uplifted by him. About 7-8 years ago a priesthood leader left the church for historical issues. He told me he'd only discuss them with me if I asked as he didn't want to hurt my faith. I didn't ask. It was a challenging experience as I really admired him.

Even our senior-most priesthood leaders have faith trials. This is not something anyone is immune to, not even the prophet.

It's taken me a long time, but I'm gradually becoming accustomed to the idea that prophets are not what I thought they were.

We sustain them as 'prophets, seers and revelators.' Not as 'prophets, seers, revelators and historians'

We get carried away by the image of a few scriptural prophets who were said to have been shown the beginning to the end of history. But really they had visions of a select few events. They may not have even been visions of historically accurate events. They may have been simply visions/impressions of symbols and stories to teach a principle.

I know it's really difficult to view it that way. It's not the way we think we've been taught. Maybe that's poor manuals. Maybe that's poor students. I still frustrated by this misperception. But I'm not sure I should always point my annoyance away from myself.

I can find you dozens of GA quotes where they effectively say "please don't place your eternal salvation in trusting on what we say. Place it on your own relationship with God."

The prophets probably can't just "ring up" God to check on certain historical facts, because there's no evidence that it has ever worked that way. The prophets also make mistakes and say things the wrong way. They probably make fewer mistakes than I do. But they still mistakes. Sometimes they make mistakes that we might feel invalidates their calling.

[phaedrus ut]

I don't know what CFR means, but I assume you are referring to evidence of some kind.

If you read the board guidelines you'll notice that you're breaking the rules for

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
  

"CFR" is a Call For References and asking you to provide support for your statements of fact not just your personal opinion.

For example, if I say Emma Smith tried to murder Joseph on more than one occasion then I would need to provide support for that statement if asked. If I said I think Emma was Joseph's second favorite wife I am only expressing my opinion.

Phaedrus